23 103. The State also confirms that the investigation into the facts of February 13, 2006, in which the minor Luisa María Escudero was wounded, is entrusted to the 10th Specialized Prosecutorial Office of the City of Medellín, which is pursuing different activities to clarify what happened and to identify the persons responsible. The State asks that the IACHR clarify whether these facts will be debated in the merits phase, since they are not mentioned in admissibility report 46/07. 104. The State maintains that through its justice system, it is complying with its obligations to investigate, prosecute and punish offenders and fully redress victims’ claims. According to the State, all the proceedings –both criminal and disciplinary- into the events reported, are underway. It asserts that they are not only active investigations, but also effective, even though they must be continued if they are to achieve the anticipated successful outcome. It contends that the situation is complicated; hence the deadlines for obtaining results must be commensurate with the requirements, circumstances and twists in the investigations. It insists that the judicial authorities have been diligent in their prosecution of the court cases, despite the degree of difficulty encountered, and that “more detailed information cannot be provided because the cases are still active and protected by the confidentiality of court records and proceedings.”18 The State maintains that none of the investigations conducted has uncovered any abuse on the part of the judicial investigatory agencies or any negligence or failure to act on their part. 105. The State contends that it has afforded the necessary protection to Ms. Mosquera and Ms. Naranjo, pursuant to the precautionary measures the Commission requested on October 22, 2004 and the provisional measures ordered by the Inter-American Court on July 5, 2006. The State underscores its commitment to comply with the provisional measures arranged, and the follow-up accomplished through periodic meetings. All this serves to achieve the essential purpose, which is to protect the rights of the persons in question. Allegations common to the three cases 106. As regards the criminal and administrative investigations into the facts that are the subject matter of these cases, the State considers that its responsibility under Articles 8(1) and 25 has not been triggered, given that the investigations have been diligent, serious, and free of unwarranted delays, in the context of investigating complex facts. As indicated previously, the State also confirms that two members of paramilitary groups were convicted in the criminal proceeding into the assassination of Ms. Yarce, and that one was convicted for the crime of forced displacement suffered by Luz Dary Ospina Bastidas and her family members. 107. The State also asks the IACHR not to consider a series of rights violated. It indicates that it is not responsible for the violation of Article 11(2) to the detriment of Mmes. Yarce, Naranjo, and Mosquera. It argues that the right to honor is violated when the public discrediting of the person or persons affected is fully shown, and that the State tolerated such conduct. This situation does not occur in the case at hand, as the alleged violation of this right by the petitioners occurred when Mmes. Ana Teresa Yarce, Mery del Socorro Naranjo, and Maria del Socorro Mosquera were considered suspects in a criminal investigation. That consideration was pursuant to the provisions in force, and not with the aim of publicly discrediting the alleged victims. 18 Colombian State’s note DDH. GOI 31279/1533 of June 14, 2006, p. 9.